INTRODUCTORY
The City Council of the City of Columbia, Missouri met for
a regular meeting at 7:10 p.m., on Monday, October 15, 2001, in the Council Chamber
of the City of Columbia, Missouri. The roll was taken with the following results:
Council Members CRAYTON, JANKU, HUTTON, LOVELESS, JOHN, COFFMAN and HINDMAN were
present. The City Manager, City Counselor, City Clerk and various Department
Heads were also present.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The minutes of the regular meeting of October 1, 2001, were
approved unanimously by voice vote on a motion made by Mr. Loveless and a second
by Mr. John.

APPROVAL AND ADJUSTMENT OF AGENDA INCLUDING CONSENT AGENDA
The agenda, including the Consent Agenda, was approved unanimously
by voice vote on a motion made by Mr. Loveless and a second by Mr. John.

SPECIAL ITEMS
None.

SCHEDULED PUBLIC COMMENTS(A)Jane Addison, Board of Greenbelt
Coalition of Mid-Missouri - Mandatory Park Dedication Ordinance.
Jane Addison, 2407 Shepard Boulevard, spoke about the importance
of establishing a mandatory open space dedication ordinance that would be required
of all developers. She noted if such an ordinance were to be enacted, many details
would need to be worked out such as criteria for dedication, compensatory procedure
for the developer, ownership, maintenance and liability to name a few. Ms. Addison
reported that both the Smart Growth Coalition and the Energy and Environment
Commission supported an open space ordinance for the City of Columbia. She indicated
the Greenbelt Coalition and Sierra Club are generally supportive, but are waiting
for the exact wording. The PedNet Coalition is very interested and have put the
presentation on their Web site, but found it difficult to vote unanimously. Ms.
Addison urged the Council to accept the recommendation from the Parks and Recreation
Commission to work towards a common goal to preserve green space for the benefit
of the residents of Columbia.

(B)Trish Blair - Kutaisi Salt Drive.
Dr. Blair, 107 W. Burnam Road, reported on the current status
of the shipments of salt collected in Columbia for the residents of Kutaisi.
Sophia Nickolishivili, presented a plaque to the Mayor and
Council from Dodo Shelia, the Senator from Kutaisi who visited Columbia in April.
She remarked that the salt donations were very much appreciated.
Several other students from Kutaisi came forward to express
their appreciation as well.

(C)Rebecca Schedler, Smithton Valley
Neighborhood Association, and John Clark, North Central ColumbiaNeighborhood
Association - Nuisance Property Abatement Ordinance.
Rebecca Schedler indicated that residents have been working
for several years on eliminating drug activity in their neighborhoods. They had
been told about an ordinance used in other cities that regulated nuisance properties.
After meeting with several neighborhood groups, they put together a draft which
was presented to Ms. Crayton, Mr. Janku and the Columbia Apartment Owners Association.
After considering those comments, Ms. Scheduler stated this revised draft ordinance
was prepared.
John Clark reported that residents ask that the Council pass
an ordinance in the near future that defines chronic nuisance properties and
establishes a scheme to reduce chronic nuisances. He noted several parts to the
legislation which defined criminal activities and chronic nuisance properties,
a process for identifying properties that seem to be in this category, and a
set of sanctions that could be imposed. Throughout the process, Mr. Clark explained
there is ample attention paid to due process.

PUBLIC HEARINGSB324-01Calling for bids for the construction
of a water storage reservoir at the South Pump Station;appropriating
funds.
The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.
Mr. Malon commented that this is part of a plan developed
a few years ago to increase the City's water production capacity from 24 million
gallons per day to 32 million gallons per day. After the last bond issue, two
new wells were drilled in the McBaine bottoms. He indicated that staff is now
in the process of preparing a contract with an engineering firm to come up with
cost estimates for a bond issue to expand the water treatment plant which included
some additional wells and water main work. In the interim, Mr. Malon believed
it important to keep moving forward with the addition to the South Pump Station.
He said it will not only help the City through peak times, but with the increase
demand on the system, this is necessary in order to maintain a SO Class 3 insurance
rating. Mr. Malon displayed a concept drawing of the proposed addition that contained
a substantially landscaped berm between the tank and the residential area. The
estimated cost for the project is approximately $2.1 million.
Mr. Malon reported in an effort to move this necessary project
forward, staff recommends that the water utility be "loaned" the necessary funds
from the unappropriated fund balance to be paid back by the water utility. He
spoke about the concept that has been followed to ensure that the water and electric
utilities do not subsidize each other. Therefore, Mr. Malon indicated it would
be appropriate to have the water utility "pay back" the loan over a 20 year period.
The Water and Light Board has recommended this alternative as well. Mr. Malon
summarized with Council approval, funds would be appropriated from the Water
and Light unappropriated fund balance to be paid back by the water utility in
20 annual payments at an interest rate of 5%.
Mr. John noted that the residential area to the north is rental
property owned by one individual. He asked if that person had been notified of
this proposal. Mr. Malon verified that notification was sent. Mr. John questioned
the difference between the two utilities. Mr. Malon explained that out of a $76
million budget, about $12 million is water and the remainder is electric. Mr.
John asked if the water utility would pay back a percentage of the project instead
of 100%. Mr. Malon responded that to be the proposal.
Mayor Hindman opened the public hearing.
There being no comments, Mayor Hindman closed the public hearing.
B324-01 was given third reading with the vote recorded as
follows: VOTING YES: CRAYTON, JANKU, HUTTON, LOVELESS, JOHN, COFFMAN, HINDMAN.
VOTING NO: NO ONE. Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:

B325-01Calling for bids for the construction
of a water main along Creasy Springs Road from Brown SchoolRoad
to Sanderson Lane.
The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.
Mr. Beck explained that this is a continuation of the City's
program to upgrade small water lines to improve domestic water service and fire
protection. The proposal calls for approximately 2,550 feet of 8-inch line at
an estimated cost of $125,000. Mr. Beck noted the existing three-inch line was
taken over by the City when we entered into an agreement with Water District
No. 1.
Mayor pro-tem Crayton opened the public hearing.
There being no comments, Mayor pro-tem Crayton closed the
public hearing.
B325-01 was given third reading with the vote recorded as
follows: VOTING YES: CRAYTON, JANKU, HUTTON, LOVELESS, JOHN, COFFMAN, HINDMAN.
VOTING NO: NO ONE. Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:

B326-01Authorizing construction of
water main serving Western Hills Subdivision.
The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.
Mr. Beck explained that this fairly small project contains
approximately 100 feet of 6-inch main and two fire hydrants at an estimated cost
of $18,550.
Mayor Hindman opened the public hearing.
There being no comments, Mayor Hindman closed the public hearing.
B326-01 was given third reading with the vote recorded as
follows: VOTING YES: CRAYTON, JANKU, HUTTON, LOVELESS, JOHN, COFFMAN, HINDMAN.
VOTING NO: NO ONE. Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:

B329-01Voluntary annexation of property
located on the southeast corner of Rangeline Street and BrownSchool
Road, extended; establishing permanent C-3 zoning.
The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.
Mr. Beck noted that the request for zoning has been recommended
for approval by both the staff and the Commission.
Mr. Janku pointed out that access to the site is controlled
by MoDOT.
Mayor Hindman opened the public hearing.
Dan Simon, an attorney with offices at 203 Executive Building,
spoke on behalf of W.B.B. Properties, the applicant. The tract consists of 4.56
acres and contains two buildings. The property is currently located in the County
and is zoned for light industrial. The request for C-3 zoning is related to the
use of one of the buildings. Mr. Simon reported that both buildings are used
by the Division of Youth Services for the State of Missouri; one is used as an
office building by that Division and the other as a residential treatment facility
for youth offenders. Currently, he said the treatment facility houses and is
used for 10 to 11 youth offenders. The intention is, that as the needs for such
services increase, the facility will be expanded into offices and additional
buildings that can accommodate up to 40 offenders. Mr. Simon noted that none
of the planned zoning classifications will accommodate the existing use as either
a conditional or permitted use. He indicated a treatment facility is a conditional
use in O-1, C-1, C-2, and C-3 zoning districts. Mr. Simon said O-1 only allows
for up to 15 people, C-1, C-2, and C-3 would allow for up to 40 people, but as
a conditional use. In order to accommodate the existing use and the possible
expansion, Mr. Simon remarked the applicant has selected C-3 zoning because of
the industrial area immediately adjacent to Boone Industrial Park. In addition,
this zoning classification appears to comport with the existing uses of the property,
it comports for this area under the Metro 2020 Plan, and it has been recommended
by the staff and unanimously by the Planning and Zoning Commission.
Regarding access, Mr. Simon said one of the reasons for planned
zoning is to control access. He said the access in this case is already controlled
and is limited to one point of access by the Missouri Department of Transportation.
The one existing point of access off of Brown School Road would only allow for
a right-in/right-out as the area is improved.
Mayor Hindman closed the public hearing.
Mr. Loveless asked if the request is granted, whether the
applicant would then have to go to the Board of Adjustment for a conditional
use permit. Mr. Dudark confirmed that assessment.
B329-01 was given third reading with the vote recorded as
follows: VOTING YES: CRAYTON, JANKU, HUTTON, LOVELESS, JOHN, COFFMAN, HINDMAN.
VOTING NO: NO ONE. Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:

B330-01Establishing permanent A-1
zoning on property located at 3220 South Old Ridge Road.
The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.
Mr. Beck noted that this recently annexed 2.7 acre tract contains
one single family residence. Both staff and the Planning and Zoning Commission
recommend that the request be approved.
Mayor Hindman opened the public hearing.
There being no comments, Mayor Hindman closed the public hearing.
B330-01 was given third reading with the vote recorded as
follows: VOTING YES: CRAYTON, JANKU, HUTTON, LOVELESS, JOHN, COFFMAN, HINDMAN.
VOTING NO: NO ONE. Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:

B331-01Establishing permanent zoning
in Districts R-1, A-1 and C-3 on property located generally east of thepresent
city limits, along both sides of I-70.
The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.
Mr. Dudark explained that this is the second phase of zoning
for the recently annexed tracts located in the Lake of the Woods area. He showed
the previously zoned tracts from the first phase of the project as well as the
tracts under question this evening. Using the map, Mr. Dudark summarized the
various recommendations to include approximately 142 acres of R-1, 140 acres
of A-1, and 4.40 acres of C-3.
Mayor Hindman opened the public hearing.
There being no comments, Mayor Hindman closed the public hearing.
B331-01 was given third reading with the vote recorded as
follows: VOTING YES: CRAYTON, JANKU, HUTTON, LOVELESS, JOHN, COFFMAN, HINDMAN.
VOTING NO: NO ONE. Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:

B332-01Rezoning property located on
the west side of Rock Quarry Road, east of the easternmost part ofSeven
Oaks Subdivision from A-1 to PUD-4.
The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.
Mr. Dudark described the property as 20.88 acres lying to
the west of Rock Quarry Road, between the new Route AC and Grindstone Nature
Area. He stated this is a long tract running east to west with 330 feet of frontage
along Rock Quarry Road, which is where the access to the property would be located.
Mr. Dudark noted the original request was for PUD-6, but the applicant actually
filed for PUD-5. After the public hearings before the Planning and Zoning Commission,
the applicant officially changed the request to PUD-4.
Mr. Dudark explained the proposal calls for 72 attached town
home buildings containing two to eight dwelling units per building. The structures
would be clustered to the east two-thirds of the tract with the western 40% being
open space. Mr. Dudark noted that Rock Quarry Road has been designated as a scenic
roadway which requires preservation of the buffer along Rock Quarry except for
minimal clearing and the entrance road. The surrounding zoning is primarily A-1
on the west side of Rock Quarry, and A-1 to the north as well as to the south.
Mr. Dudark showed the new alignment of Route AC. He said the zoning pattern is
different on the east side with a some A-1, but it substantially consists of
R-1, R-2 and R-3.
Mr. Dudark reported that in 1997, the average daily traffic
on Rock Quarry Road was about 6,600 vehicles per day. The traffic count is currently
estimated at about 7,500. He explained that the Planning and Zoning Commission
asked staff for a study of the entire area. It was estimated that under the existing
zoning, traffic would increase to about 12,500, or by 67%. A build-out under
a PUD-4 scheme, if all of the property were developed, would increase traffic
to about 16,000 cars per day, or 113% over today's estimate.
Mr. Dudark remarked that improvements to Rock Quarry Road
have been carried in the CIP as an out-year project for several years. For this
fiscal year, he said it was dropped for other priorities and there are no real
plans to improve the roadway itself. He explained the road to be a 20-foot wide
paved area with two 10-foot lanes. There are no shoulders or sidewalks along
the roadway. Mr. Dudark said it has not been determined whether the road is operating
currently at capacity or below it. He spoke of the terrain and indicated there
are several trees in close proximity to the travelway. In addition, there are
several drop-offs along the east side of the road -- located to the north of
the tract in question.
Mr. Dudark reported that several hearings had been held with
the developer and the neighborhood association. Various alternatives were considered
by the Commission which included rezoning the tract to PUD-2, PUD-3, PUD-4 and
PUD-5. He said PUD-2 would be equivalent to the current A-1 zoning, about two
dwelling units per acre. Under that zoning the applicant could build approximately
37 homes. A PUD-3 development would be equivalent to an R-1 zone and would allow
about 55 dwelling units, and a PUD-4 would allow 72 dwellings. The Commission
recommended denial of the PUD-5 request and chose not to recommend any alternative,
including the applicant's change to PUD-4. The comment was made that a new proposal
should be submitted by the applicant before the Commission would take any kind
of action - either in support or against any plan.
Mr. Hutton asked about the significance of the scenic roadway
designation and the ramifications of it as far as development is concerned. Mr.
Dudark explained that it is a special overlay zone that covers either side of
the roadway to support the preservation of natural areas, primarily trees. He
said there can be some limited clearing of dead and small trees. Other than that,
the vegetation cannot be disturbed so as to preserve the canopy effect along
the roadway. The ramification is to limit development near the frontage. In this
particular case, Rock Quarry Road is a collector street with 80 feet from the
centerline to the right-of-way. Mr. Hutton asked what the normal right-of-way
would be on a collector street. Mr. Patterson said it would be 66-feet, 33-feet
on each side.
Mayor Hindman opened the public hearing.
Dan Atwill, an attorney with offices at 609 E. Broadway, spoke
on behalf of Steve Herigon. He distributed some information and displayed the
area in question on the overhead. Mr. Atwill believed it was fair to say that
the issue of rezoning in this case has become a question of density rather than
whether or not there should be rezoning at all. He thought it to be clear that
A-1 zoning is not reasonably appropriate for this property. He summarized comments
made by the Commission members in regards to which level of PUD they would favor.
The majority indicated possible approval of PUD-3. Although considerable time
and effort has been invested in this project, Mr. Atwill stated that no mutually
acceptable arrangement can be presented to the Council this evening. He noted
that the developer has reduced his density request after negotiations with interested
groups.
Mr. Atwill asked that the Council focus their attention on
several factors as follows: the location is excellent for living quarters because
of its proximity to the University and the new Route AC; the new route will undoubtedly
be available to accept a significant increase in traffic through the area; and,
other nearby areas have been dedicated to conservation and parkland. He displayed
another drawing and pointed to areas to the northeast and to the north which
will probably never be subject to development.
Bill Crockett, an engineer with offices at 2608 N. Stadium,
said the immediate response in dealing with urban sprawl is to develop or redevelop
areas within the current city limits. He remarked that is one of the advantages
to this property in that it has all utilities available. He acknowledged the
one shortcoming is the roadway. Mr. Crockett thought 72 units would add another
350 to 400 car trips per day which could be substantial on a road such as Rock
Quarry. He commented the road has been in the City's CIP for a number of years,
but has never been put on the funding list. He believed it was logical to improve
the road. Mr. Crockett verified that Mr. Herigon fully intended to comply with
the scenic overlay designation and its buffer strip.
Richard Simpson, 3407 Rock Quarry Road, President of the Grindstone
Rock Quarry Neighborhood Association, expressed opposition to the rezoning request
for anything more than PUD-2. He passed around pictures taken last week of the
area. Mr. Simpson reported the neighborhood along the 1.5 mile stretch of Rock
Quarry consists of a mix of only 23 owner occupied homes and rental dwellings.
He said the dense development proposed by Mr. Herigon would be totally inconsistent
with the rest of the housing in the area. He commented that a PUD-4 development
would more than double the size of the existing neighborhood. When asked about
the additional traffic along Rock Quarry Road that would be created by this type
of development, Mr. Herigon's reply had been that traffic was not the developer's
concern -- it was a city problem. Mr. Simpson said it was obvious to the neighborhood
association that development along Scenic Rock Quarry Road is inevitable and
residents want to go on record as not being opposed to development that fits
the area. However, Mr. Simpson said if this development, for maximum profit,
is allowed to occur above PUD-2, the preservation efforts of many hundreds of
individuals could be undermined.
John Poses, 1712 Riback Road, objected to any major development
along this stretch of Rock Quarry Road. He was concerned about traffic issues.
Fred Young, 2101 Rock Quarry Road, a member of the Grindstone
Rock Quarry Neighborhood Association, spoke in support of the neighborhood's
position. He felt the density was inappropriate for the neighborhood and the
stress on the road would be too much.
Mariel Stephenson, 2111 Rock Quarry Road, said she battled
for the preservation of Rock Quarry Road as a scenic road as well as for the
Greenbelt ordinance to be established. She said green space is very important
to a City. Ms. Stephenson indicated she too had attended neighborhood meetings
with the developer and was concerned about his total lack of concern about the
health of the people who live in this area (in terms of the road). To say the
project would only add 400 to 500 more cars per day, she believed was a pipe
dream. Ms. Stephenson also pointed out that the road is collapsing. She remarked
that she had seen concept drawings at a Planning and Zoning meeting for an alternate
road if Scenic Rock Quarry was going to be one- way. This road would run parallel
to Rock Quarry Road and it would go straight through her house. Ms. Stephenson
asked the Council to reject the proposal.
Victoria Wilson, spoke as a member of the Grindstone Rock
Quarry Neighborhood Association and on behalf of Riback Holding Investment Association.
She explained that the Association owns a tract of land opposite the subject
tract as well as property to the north of the subject tract. Although it is correct
in that part of the Riback Holding Investment property is zoned R-2 and R-3,
Ms. Wilson reported that request was made when those tracts were annexed into
the city. She indicated that the Association supports the downzoning of the property
and have no intention of developing it at that level. She said they would support
R-1 zoning on the property. At the Planning and Zoning hearing, Ms. Wilson reported
that the Commission had gone to great lengths to consider that whatever happens
with the tract in questions would set a precedent for future development on Scenic
Rock Quarry Road. She remarked that the Commission indicated that congestion
of a road is not typically a reason to deny a request, even though traffic is
currently backed up more than half a mile from the light at Stadium onto Rock
Quarry Road. She said that is not the significant point. The Commission expressed
concern about the danger that might be posed by the impact of the development.
Dee Dokken, 208 Sanford, spoke on behalf of the Greenbelt
Coalition of Mid-Missouri. She explained she owns 43 acres of land along Hinkson
Creek and Scenic Rock Quarry Road, north of the proposed development. Ms. Dokken
remarked that the residents of this area have demonstrated their stewardship
through land donations, conservation easements and plans for voluntary downzoning.
She indicated neighbors are not only doing this for their own quality of life,
but in an attempt to protect this area for all people of Columbia. Ms. Dokken
also expressed concern about whether Rock Quarry Road will need to be expanded
to serve this development and similar ones that could follow.
Marty Riback, 1711 Riback Road, pointed out that this is a
unique area of Columbia, something that should be held on to. He did not think
residents objected to other people living there, but thought it should be single
family.
Dan Atwill reiterated the zones of adjacent tracts in the
area. He stated the applicant's request is not inconsistent with the neighborhood.
Mayor Hindman closed the public hearing.
Mr. John asked about the minimum lot size for A-1 tracts.
Mr. Dudark said staff made the projection to be approximately one-half acre for
each dwelling unit with the assumption there would not be any sewers. Mr. John
inquired as to why they made the assumption without sewers. Mr. Dudark responded
that was because of the economic feasibility of sewers at that density. With
clustering, it probably would be feasible to have sewers because of the lengths
of the runs. Mr. Dudark indicated per the applicant's calculations, and under
the right conditions, they plan on four properties per acre. He said City regulations
allow the lot size to be 7,000 square feet for non-agricultural purposes.
Mayor Hindman was concerned about the traffic situation on
Rock Quarry Road. If this fairly high density development occurs, it would invite
higher density through the area. He did not think high density should be started
that far to the north.
Mr. Hutton commented that he did not consider PUD-4 as high
density when compared to an R-1 subdivision that would allow seven lots per acre.
He thought the question as to what is the proper density in this situation.
Mr. John acknowledged he did not know what the appropriate
density should be for the tract in question. In regards to infrastructure, he
said the City has never been in favor of putting it in ahead of development.
He commented that would smack as preference to a certain developer/development
or piece of land. Mr. John noted the City did not improve Garth Avenue before
authorizing the development of Hunter's Gate.
Mr. John indicated the scenic roadway designation was meant
to provide a buffer. Now it seems people think this buffer should be buffered
by not allowing any development near it. If that is true, there would be nothing
left to build on. Mr. John remarked that had the tract been fairly level, it
would be possible to put 72 units on the property with an R-1 or A-1 zone. However,
that is not the case situation. He spoke about the topography of the property
and the need for clustering which would accommodate town homes. Yet, the neighboring
residents do not want town homes because it is not the right kind of development.
He noted with this project, the applicant has proposed that all of the development
would be on a third of the land with the back being almost completely vacant
and the front having the scenic roadway buffer. Mr. John stated the Council encourages
PUD's because the developer can be required to contribute to roadway costs, and
the City has more control over the plan and the placement of structures. He said
if there is no benefit to the developer in proceeding with a PUD, then nobody
will do them. Mr. John pointed out there are still approximately 30 acres of
R-3 in this immediate area that the City can do nothing about unless we buy those
properties. He recognized that perhaps 72 units for this tract might be too dense,
but he thought a cluster development was a good idea.
Mr. Coffman said there are other people in town that enjoy
Rock Quarry Road and think it is a wonderful asset to the community. He commented
that he would not want to see the road improved if it means cutting down the
vegetative buffer around it. He believed the proposal before them to be too dense
and too far north into the unique part of the road. Mr. Coffman said he would
have to vote against the proposal.
Mr. Janku believed Mr. John's points about PUD's and clustering
were appropriate. He thought there should be some modest benefit from taking
the PUD approach. Mr. Janku expressed concern about the possibility of the City
being forced to correct mistakes because the proper infrastructure was not in
place at the time development occurred. His concern about this specific property
related not only to the number of units, but the fact that within the units there
is no specificity about the number of bedrooms or the number of occupants per
unit. Mr. Janku thought the density would actually be more than the typical four
units per acre when factoring in the number of single people that could be there,
which would mean more vehicles per unit.
Mr. Loveless commented that if the developer had presented
a plan equivalent to R-1 zoning he would support it. He could not support anything
with more density than that.
B332-01 was given third reading with the vote recorded as
follows: VOTING YES: NO ONE. VOTING NO: CRAYTON, JANKU, HUTTON, LOVELESS, JOHN,
COFFMAN, HINDMAN. Bill defeated.

B333-01Authorizing an annexation agreement
with B.C. Investments of Columbia, L.L.C.; approving thepreliminary
plat of Settlers Ridge.
The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.
Mr. Patterson explained that this ordinance represents the
annexation agreement, but the issue also involved an advertised public hearing
for the construction of a sewer line. This project is under the 80-acre point
policy which would allow the construction of a sewer line up to that point in
a drainage basin; however, because the property is outside the city limits, it
falls under the City's sewer policy that requires either annexation or an annexation
agreement in order for the services to be provided. He said the ordinance that
authorizes the agreement will be discussed separately.
Mr. Patterson reported the sewer project will consist of about
4,500 feet of gravity sewer line at a cost of $260,000. As part of the sewer
project, the developer has agreed to provide the construction design and legal
descriptions of easements that will be necessary to construct the sewer line,
as well as contribute $75,000 of the total cost toward the expansion of capacity
at the North Hampton Village pump station which will receive the flow from this
sewer project. If the Council wishes for the project to proceed, Mr. Patterson
said a motion would be needed directing staff to finish final plans and specifications
as well as approval of the ordinance which allows the City Manager to execute
the annexation agreement.
Mr. Dudark stated that the Planning and Zoning Commission
reviewed the proposal for this 117 acre tract in relation to its appropriateness
with the Metro 2020 plan. He indicated the Commission determined that the proposed
project was appropriate for the area and that the requested zoning at the time
of annexation would be consistent with the approved County zoning that has been
granted (consisting of planned commercial, multi-family residential, and single
family residential). The Commission also felt the preliminary plat to be satisfactory
subject to three conditions as follows: a new road should be installed at Route
HH extending west of Route B resulting in a four-way intersection; a storm water
management plan should be developed and implemented in compliance with city standards;
and that sidewalks should be constructed along Route B, Route HH, Brown Station
Road, and Ketterer Road, or payment in lieu of constructing sidewalks along these
unimproved perimeter roadways should be made by the developer. Mr. Dudark noted
that the first two conditions have been included in the annexation agreement.
Sidewalk requirements are governed by the City's subdivision regulations and
other Council sidewalk policies currently in effect.
Mr. Loveless asked if there was anything in the annexation
agreement that would require the developer to enlarge water lines to allow for
a better flow rate. Mr. Dudark noted that there is a stipulation in the agreement
that provides before any sewer connection can be made, it would have to meet
the City's minimum fire flow standards.
Mr. Janku inquired as to whether the internal water design
would be up to standards. Mr. Dudark responded there would likely have to be
some improvements made to the rural Water District's system, whether it be line
sizing or above power storage, which has yet to be determined by an engineering
study. He believed it was determined that one and two family dwellings would
be fine, but multi-family and commercial, depending on the square footage and
the type of construction, might require more than what currently exists.
Mayor Hindman opened the public hearing.
Ron Shy, 5600 S. Highway KK, spoke about water flows with
regard to the Water District. He did not have the results of the hydrant flow
tests taken on Route HH near the Public Water District's tower in writing, but
he had been told by the tester there would be over 2,000 gallons per minute at
that location. He said that exceeds the requirement for commercial development
in this area. Mr. Shy noted that the staff report did not take into account some
of the interconnections with other towers and wells. He stated that the Water
District feels they have adequate pressure and supplies of water. Mr. Shy indicated
he did not have a problem with it and believed the issue is addressed in the
annexation agreement -- before any connections can occur, there would have to
be adequate water for fire protection.
Mr. John asked about Route HH being extended west and what
would happen to Cypress Creek Lane. Mr. Shy believed the prevailing thought was
that Route HH would extend westward and intersect again with Ketterer Road. He
said they also discussed this possible solution with adjacent property owners
to the west and they had been significantly in favor of it. Mr. Shy thought MoDOT
would like to see it as well.
Waldo Palmer, 414 Alexander, was opposed to the extension
of sewer lines outside the City limits. Mr. John pointed out that since the applicants
are signing a pre-annexation agreement, the property will have to be annexed
once it becomes contiguous with the City limits. Mr. Beck explained the pre-annexation
procedure.
Mayor Hindman closed the public hearing.
Mr. Loveless made the motion that staff be directed to proceed
with the extension of the sewer to the 80-acre point. The motion was seconded
by Mr. Hutton and approved unanimously by voice vote.
B333-01 was given third reading with the vote recorded as
follows: VOTING YES: CRAYTON, JANKU, HUTTON, LOVELESS, JOHN, COFFMAN, HINDMAN.
VOTING NO: NO ONE. Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:

B334-01Authorizing the installation
of a traffic calming device on William Street.
The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.
Mr. Patterson explained that this traffic calming project
is the result of a study that was conducted which identified a serious speeding
problem on William Street. He said staff is working with Boone Hospital and recommends
the installation of a raised median to be located just south of Bass Street.
The median would slow motorists by deflection and by reducing the amount of pavement
available to vehicles. In addition, the existing pedestrian crosswalk would be
relocated to the north end of the median. Mr. Patterson reported the Hospital
has agreed to participate to the extent of performing the curb cuts and replacement
of the handicapped accessible curb on each side of the crosswalk if the City
will install the median and crosswalk. The total cost of the project will be
approximately $9,500 with the recommendation that the work be done with force
account labor.
Mayor Hindman opened the public hearing.
There being no comments, Mayor Hindman closed the public hearing.
B334-01 was given third reading with the vote recorded as
follows; VOTING YES: CRAYTON, JANKU, HUTTON, LOVELESS, JOHN, COFFMAN, HINDMAN.
VOTING NO: NO ONE. Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:

B337-01Authorizing Change Order No.
1; approving the engineer's final report; levying special assessments;appropriating
funds for the Annual Sidewalk Project.
The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.
Mr. Patterson noted that an amendment sheet had been prepared
for the purpose of dividing one of the assessments into two separate tracts.
Mr. Janku made the motion that B337-01 be amended per the
amendment sheet. The motion was seconded by Mr. John and approved unanimously
by voice vote.
Mr. Patterson explained that this hearing is for the purpose
of determining special benefits and levying special assessments against lots
and parcels of land abutting the recently completed sidewalk installation along
Bethel Street, Brickton Road, Trimble Road, LaRail Drive, Grant Lane, Conley
Road and Grampian Drive. The public hearing for this project was held on November
15, 1999. This is a continuation of the City's ongoing program to fill in gaps
along streets throughout Columbia. All of the projects are considered to be a
development responsibility under provisions of the subdivision regulations and
in accordance with Policy Resolution 93-91A. Property owners were notified of
the requirements for the sidewalk and provided opportunities to construct them
on their own. Mr. Patterson noted that several properties included in the original
list have completed the sidewalk work privately.
Mr. Patterson reported the total project cost is $64,421.20,
of which $57,523.99 is proposed to be paid for by special tax bills against the
11 separate tracts of land. The tax bills range from $3.49 to $5.00 per square
foot and from $1,380.88 to $16,172.71 per property. Mr. Patterson pointed out
that Columbia Public Schools will pay on a direct bill basis for the work done
on their behalf at Gentry Middle School, and that the parking utility will pay
$3,506.71 for the work done at Seventh and Walnut Parking Plaza. The Capital
Improvement Program Annual Sidewalk Program will pay $2,075.45 for overages above
the maximum amount of tax bill set on two sections of sidewalk.
Mr. Loveless asked Mr. Patterson for an explanation of why
in some subdivisions it costs $3.49 per square foot to construct a sidewalk and
in others it costs as much as $5.00. Mr. Patterson explained that a pre-construction
estimate is prepared based on the examination of site conditions, and unusual
topography in certain areas can increase the cost of the work. He added that
some of the sidewalks are four-feet and some are five-feet in width.
Mr. John reported that when he went to look up a street address
on one of the parcels, he noted a recording discrepancy according to the book
and page number on file in the Recorder's Office. Mr. Patterson said he would
check into the discrepancy on the $4,421.61 tax bill.
Mr. John asked if these sidewalks were constructed in subdivisions
that were platted after the current ordinances and policies were in place requiring
such to be built. Mr. Patterson said that was correct. Mr. John understood then
that the agreements were in place to provide all of the sidewalks. Mr. Patterson
said that is the policy and unless staff made an error, that is the way these
should be.
There was a discussion about tabling the ordinance in order
to clear up any discrepancies with the tract mentioned earlier. It was decided
that they would continue with the public hearing and then table the issue.
Mayor Hindman opened the public hearing.
Bruce Beckett, an attorney with offices at 901 E. Broadway,
spoke on behalf of Asel Mayse Development Company. He explained that the Company
purchased and developed a tract that is known as Lake Woodrail Point Subdivision
in 1987. As part of the purchase, the Company acquired title from the original
owner of a remnant of Lot 57, Oakwood Hills Subdivision, Block 7, against which
a special assessment has been made and is included in this ordinance in the amount
of$2,737.65. Mr. Beckett distributed excerpts from the City Code and Charter
stating what is necessary to find property specially benefitted, and excerpts
from the zoning ordinances pertaining to R-1 subdivisions. He said the remnant
of Lot 57 is 20-feet wide along Lake Point Lane and 120-feet long along LaRail,
making it 2,400 square feet in its entirety. The sidewalk has been constructed
along the full length of its boundary with LaRail, about 120 feet long. Mr. Beckett
reported the lot is useless. If the City imposes a 25- foot front setback, a
25-foot rear yard setback and a 12½ foot side yard along LaRail and a
6-foot side yard along the southern boundary of the remnant, his client would
end up with a lot about 7½ feet wide and 70-feet long. He said right now
the only thing being done with the property is that his client mows it. Mr. Beckett
indicated the sidewalk is a benefit to the general public and did not do anything
for the totally unbuildable lot.
Mr. Beck asked if this lot was part of the development of
the original subdivision. Mr. Beckett said Oakwood Hills was platted in 1973
and the remnant was made when LaRail was put through the middle of Lot 57, east
to west. He said it left this 20-foot remnant on the south, his client's property,
and about a 4-foot remnant on the north, the subject of the other half of the
assessment. Mr. Beckett did not know who owns the 4-foot remnant.
Kevin Crane, Vice-President of the Bedford Walk Homeowners
Association, spoke about the sidewalk on either side of Sudbury. He requested
that the City help defray some of their tax bill for several reasons. While the
Association knew they would be responsible for constructing a sidewalk privately
or bear the cost of the public improvement, Mr. Crane remarked that knowledge
was gleaned from their own efforts. He said when the Association was given 100%
authority over the subdivision, the developer told them that if they did not
construct the sidewalk, the City eventually would. As a result of this information,
the Association Board started to look at who could do the work privately. Mr.
Crane reported the Board decided to make the improvement themselves for $2,900.
He said the project was to be done in October, but in September of last year
the City began the work.
Mr. Crane said the Association had not received notice of
the hearing or notice of the actual deadline for completion. He confirmed the
letters exist and has since gotten copies from the City; however, up until July
28, 1998, the Association Office was at 405 Sudbury. He indicated when the office
was relocated, they filled out the necessary paperwork for a change of address.
On the record, Mr. Crane stated the Association is still shown at 405 Sudbury.
He explained they are trying to do the right thing, but obviously did not get
it done in time. Mr. Crane remarked that the Association would appreciate any
help the City could give in reducing the tax bill. He understood the amount to
be $6,000. Mr. Patterson said it was $6,088.
Mayor Hindman closed the public hearing.
Mr. Janku made the motion to delete the sliver of land Mr.
Beckett addressed. The motion was seconded by Mr. Hutton.
Mr. Boeckmann asked if the Council was referring to both sides
of the street in the motion. It was decided both sides should be deleted from
the tax bill.
Mr. John said this may be an issue that has already been corrected,
but many times when developments have common areas that will never be developed,
sidewalks should be constructed rather quickly as there is no need to wait because
there would not be heavy equipment driving over them.
Mr. Beck pointed out that many cities require that bonds be
put up for all improvements to be done by the subdivider. He said this is something
homeowner associations need to look at when they assume responsibility of the
subdivision from the developer.
Mr. Janku amended his motion to be both sides of street.
The motion to amend, made by Mr. Janku, amended by Mr. Janku,
seconded by Mr. Hutton, was approved unanimously by voice vote.
Regarding the Bedford Walk situation, Mr. Janku thought the
Association should appeal to the developer. Mr. Loveless suggested that the City
take their contract price ($2,900) and subtract it from ours ($6,088) and then
split the difference with the Association.
Mr. Loveless made the motion that B337-01 be further amended
to reduce the tax bill to $4,500 on Lots 50A and 49A of Bedford Walk, Plat 2.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Janku and approved unanimously by voice vote.
Mr. Loveless made the motion that B337-01, as amended, be
tabled to the November 5, 2001, Council meeting. The motion was seconded by Mr.
John and approved unanimously by voice vote.

R221-01Approving an amendment to the
FY 2001 CDBG and HOME Action Plans.
The resolution was read by the Clerk.
Mr. Beck explained that this would authorize the reprogramming
of unused CDBG and HOME funds. The plans for the $172,000 is to remove dilapidated
housing and to acquire vacant properties in the NRT area so as to be redeveloped
by others. The funding will also be used for the emergency repair program.
Before going forward with this plan, Mr. Janku thought the
Council needed to look at the program and decide how to accomplish the goals.
Mayor Hindman opened the public hearing.
There being no comments, Mayor Hindman closed the public hearing.
The vote on R221-01 was recorded as follows: VOTING YES: CRAYTON,
JANKU, HUTTON, LOVELESS, JOHN, COFFMAN, HINDMAN. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Resolution
declared adopted, reading as follows:

R222-01Approving the FY 2002 CDBG
Action Plan and HOME Action Plan.
The resolution was read by the Clerk.
Mr. Beck explained that these two plans need to be approved
each year in order for the City to receive funds from the Department of Housing
and Urban Development. The CDBG allocation is $1,080,000, and HOME funds is $600,000.
Mayor Hindman opened the public hearing.
There being no comments, Mayor Hindman closed the public hearing.
The vote on R222-01 was recorded as follows: VOTING YES: CRAYTON,
JANKU, HUTTON, LOVELESS, JOHN, COFFMAN, HINDMAN. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Resolution
declared adopted, reading as follows:

OLD BUSINESSB328-01Appropriating funds for wholesale
power purchases and electric sales revenues.
The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.
Mr. Beck explained that the final total expenditures for production
and purchase of electric capacity and energy for FY 2001 are more than the original
budget, as are revenues from sales of the associated energy. This ordinance will
appropriate an additional $2,900,000 for electric production and purchase, and
an additional $3,500,000 in additional electric utility revenues for the fiscal
year.
Mr. John asked if these figures were taken into account when
finalizing this year's budget. Mr. Malon said for next year's budget they did
a historical projection and did not necessarily make a particular bump up for
one year or another. When making forecasts, he said they tend to be straight
lines and actuals tend to be bumpy lines. Mr. Malon indicated they did not specifically
go back and adjust FY 02.
Mr. Loveless asked where the $600,000 difference would go.
Mr. Malon said it goes in the Water and Light fund.
Mr. Beck pointed out that two years ago, the City actually
lowered the electric rate by 5%. He said they would not let the fund get built
up over a certain level.
Mr. Hutton made the motion that B328-01 be amended per the
amendment sheet. The motion was seconded by Mr. Loveless and approved unanimously
by voice vote.
B328-01 was given third reading with the vote recorded as
follows: VOTING YES: CRAYTON, JANKU, HUTTON, LOVELESS, JOHN, COFFMAN, HINDMAN.
VOTING NO: NO ONE. Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:

B339-01Accepting a Local Law Enforcement
Block Grant from the U.S. Department of Justice; appropriatingfunds.
The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.
Acting Chief McCrary explained that this would authorize acceptance
of $101,811 which has been awarded under the Office of Justice Programs for the
purchase of law enforcement equipment. Because of an agreement between the City
and Boone County, $28,000 of this money will be transferred to the Boone County
Sheriff's Department which leaves $73,811 for the Police Department. He said
part of the grant money will be used toward equipment for a mobile command unit.
A complete list of equipment is attached to the ordinance.
B339-01 was given third reading with the vote recorded as
follows: VOTING YES: CRAYTON, JANKU, HUTTON, LOVELESS, JOHN, COFFMAN, HINDMAN.
VOTING NO: NO ONE. Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:

B344-01Amending Chapter 8 of the City
Code to establish new ward boundaries - Trial 4.B345-01Amending Chapter 8 of the City
Code to establish new ward boundaries - Trial 5.B346-01Amending Chapter 8 of the City
Code to establish new ward boundaries - Trial 4J.
All three bill were given second reading by the Clerk.
Mayor Hindman noted the bills will be voted on separately.
Mayor Hindman explained that a Reapportionment Committee consisting
of a representative from each ward and one at-large member had been appointed
to study this issue and make recommendations to the Council.
Terry Smith, Vice-chair of the Reapportionment Committee,
explained that their charge had been to come up with six wards of approximately
equal population within a variance of 5%. The wards were to be compact and contiguous
and the Committee attempted to avoid splitting neighborhood associations. Because
the Council is non-partisan, Mr. Smith indicated no consideration was given to
partisanship as the Committee made their recommendations.
Mr. Smith reported the group adopted two motions; one recommendation
was that the Council should appoint a committee to consider increasing the number
of wards in the City as urgent business, and the second was to recommend an actual
redistricting plan. The Committee recommended both Trial 4 and Trial 5, as amended,
without priority.
Mr. Smith indicated that proponents of Trial 4 argue that
this option offers the best chance for a racial minority to be elected or re-elected
to the City Council. These individuals thought the City benefitted by Council
differences of opinions and priorities. It was noted that black neighborhoods
in the current First Ward are receiving an unprecedented amount of attention
and City support since a black Councilperson was elected. These Committee members
believed the attention was much needed and should be given an opportunity to
continue. Opponents of Trial 4 argue that it runs the danger of forming a political
ghetto in the central city with attention drawn to issues of crime, poverty,
drugs and has the potential of being extended by public opinion to all neighborhoods
of the Ward. Further, low voter participation and the lack of service on City
Boards and Commissions does have an impact on City policy making.
Mr. Smith remarked that proponents of Trial 5 argue the addition
of a block of voters with a proven record of high voter turnout and government
participation will increase the First Ward's influence on City planning and decisions.
Further, if diversity is a desirable goal, then this is best accomplished by
having low income and high income neighborhoods in the same ward. Neighborhoods
in the central city, regardless of income level, share a common interest in the
continued vitality of the central city in dealing with problems associated with
the proximity of businesses and other institutions threatening the integrity
of those neighborhoods.
Mr. Smith stated that opponents of Trial 5 argue the higher
voter turnout and government participation in the high income census tracts will
overwhelm other interests in the ward, and the momentum of gains in the low income
neighborhoods may be lost. Further, they believed that diversity on the City
Council is more important than ward diversity since City issues are citywide,
but seldom at the ward level.
In conclusion, Mr. Smith said the Committee worked very well
together and he thought all of the issues had been brought to the table. He reported
the group met four times and a public hearing had been held at which time members
of the public came forward to make their points.
On behalf of the Council, Mayor Hindman thanked the Committee
for their hard work on the issue.
John Clark, 403 N. Ninth, urged the adoption of Trial 5. He
did not think that meaningful homogeneity should be defined as keeping poor and
non-voting people in the same ward. Mr. Clark said Trial 4 would do that while
Trial 4J would amplify it. Mr. Clark thought that Trial 5 would dramatically
correct this situation and in the process create a much more compact First Ward.
However, he noted a problem in that Trial 5 would split the Benton-Stephens Neighborhood
Association. Mr. Clark suggested that Trial 5 be amended to include the language
used in Trial 4J so that all of Benton-Stephens is in the Third Ward.
Jim Rutter, 819 W. Rollins, spoke as the Fourth Ward Democratic
Committee Member from the Boone County Central Committee. He said that Trial
5 would put him out of the area that he was voted to serve. When the last redistricting
occurred, the First Ward was created to be square in the middle of the other
wards. This was done with the idea that it would grant more minority and low
income representation, which he believed to be very important. He thought Trial
5 would dilute the minority and those neighborhoods from the Fourth Ward added
to the First Ward could take control. Mr. Rutter suggested the adoption of Trial
4 or 4J simply to keep the makeup of the First Ward substantially the same.
Waldo Palmer, 414 Alexander, favored Trial 5. He was hopeful
to have more people in Ward One who vote. Mr. Palmer said the residents of the
First Ward are just as much a part of the City as anyone else.
Mr. Janku indicated he preferred Trial 4 over Trial 5. He
stated that Trial 5 would include an area of the Fourth Ward that is known for
being very politically active. This could cause competition on Boards and Commissions
when only one member per ward is eligible to serve. Mr. Janku believed his version
of Trial 4 was more compact, particularly with respect to the Second Ward.
Mr. Loveless preferred the version of Trial 4 that Mr. Janku
and Mr. Hutton revised for two reasons. He commented that the portion of Ward
Four shown in Trial 5 has traditionally been the heart of the Fourth Ward. He
wanted to see it remain as part of Ward Four. Mr. Loveless indicated that Trial
4J also maintains the Rothwell Heights Neighborhood as part of the Fourth Ward.
He noted this Association has been part of the Fourth Ward for decades, and Trial
4 carves it out and puts it in the Second Ward.
Mr. Coffman did not think there was any moral value that is
superior. He said striving for diversity within a ward as opposed to striving
for diversity on the Council are both equally valuable goals. He thought the
most important value was trying to keep the neighborhoods compact. Mr. Coffman
remarked the sub-units within the wards are the foundation of democracy. He commented
that another benefit to Trial 4J was that it kept the Benton-Stephens Neighborhood
Association in one ward.
Ms. Crayton was saddened that everyone is still worrying about
color and indicated she was insulted by the word "ghetto". She remarked that
as a Council member, she represents all people -- no matter what their color.
Mr. John favored the contiguous lines of Trial 4J, but overall
preferred Trial 5 because it has the strongest central ward and would be more
compact. He noted that Trial 5 would be comprised of the most non-homogenous
group of people concerned about central city issues. His concern with both Trials
4 and 4J related to the fact that 10 years from now the First Ward will become
trapped with very little border, whereas Wards Two, Three and Five will have
most of the growth borders. Mr. John leaned toward Trial 5.
Mr. Hutton spoke of his support for Trial 4J as it would meet
the needs as he sees them.
Mayor Hindman commented that the improvements being made to
the First Ward are tremendous. He said residents have become very cohesive and
are working very hard together. Mayor Hindman preferred Trial 4J because it comes
the closest to replicating the current situation within the First Ward.
The Clerk called the roll and Ms. Crayton, Mr. John, and Mayor
Hindman voted in favor of Trial 5. Mr. Janku, Mr. Hutton, Mr. Loveless, and Mr.
Coffman voted in favor of Trial 4J.
B344-01 was given third reading with the vote recorded as
follows: VOTING YES: NO ONE. VOTING NO: CRAYTON, JANKU, HUTTON, LOVELESS, JOHN,
COFFMAN, HINDMAN. Bill defeated.
B345-01 was given third reading with the vote recorded as
follows: VOTING YES: CRAYTON. VOTING NO: JANKU, HUTTON, LOVELESS, JOHN, COFFMAN,
HINDMAN. Bill defeated.
B346-01 was given third reading with the vote recorded as
follows: VOTING YES: CRAYTON, JANKU, HUTTON, LOVELESS, JOHN, COFFMAN, HINDMAN.
VOTING NO: NO ONE. Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:

CONSENT AGENDA
The following bills were given second reading and the resolutions
were read by the Clerk.

B323-01Accepting easements for utility
purposes.B327-01Approving the engineer's final
report; accepting a deed of dedication; authorizing payment ofdifferential
costs for construction of water main along Quail Creek, Plat 2.B335-01Authorizing acquisition of easements
for construction of the Route B pedestrian bridge over BusinessLoop
70.B336-01Authorizing Change Order No.
1 to the agreement with Don Schnieders Excavating Co., Inc. andaccepting
the engineer's final report for the C-6 Interceptor Sewer Project.B338-01Authorizing an agreement with
the Daniel Boone Regional Library for the City to provide vehiclemaintenance
to the Library.B340-01Levying special assessments
on properties for abatement of weed nuisance.B341-01Accepting a special warranty
deed for greenspace/trail purposes.B342-01Amending the FY 2002 Classification
Plan and Pay Plan.B343-01Amending Chapter 19 of the City
Code to establish the position of electronic government coordinatoras
an unclassified position.R216-01Setting a public hearing: voluntary
annexation of land located on the west side of Warren Road,approximately
2,400 feet north of New Haven Road.R217-01Setting a public hearing: landscaping
at the Armory parking lot.R218-01Authorizing Amendment No. 1
to the agreement with the Missouri Department of Health for theMaternal
Child Health Program.R219-01Authorizing an adopt a spot
agreement with Kraft Foods North America, Inc.R220-01Authorizing an agreement for
operation of a candy vending machine at Columbia Regional Airport.

The bills were given third reading and the resolutions
were read with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: CRAYTON, JANKU,
HUTTON, LOVELESS, JOHN, COFFMAN and HINDMAN. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Bills declared
enacted and resolutions declared adopted, reading as follows:

NEW BUSINESSR223-01Authorizing agreements with
various cultural organizations.
The resolution was read by the Clerk.
Mr. Beck explained that this would formalize 24 contracts
with 19 local art agencies for a total of $70,000. He said it also sets up the
opportunity for the City to enter into agreements for projects that are $500
or less throughout the year.
The vote on R223-01 was recorded as follows: VOTING YES: CRAYTON,
JANKU, HUTTON, LOVELESS, JOHN, COFFMAN, HINDMAN. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Resolution
declared adopted, reading as follows:

R224-01Declaring notice of public
sale for Special Obligation Bonds for Solid Waste and Sanitary SewerCapital
Projects.
The resolution was read by the Clerk.
Ms. Fleming explained that this will authorize the staff to
proceed with the notices for the bond sale to finance projects in the current
CIP. She reported the bonds were insured with an AAA rating, which will save
the City money. She said the bonds will be priced and revised ordinances will
be given to the Council at the next meeting.
The vote on R224-01 was recorded as follows: VOTING YES: CRAYTON,
JANKU, HUTTON, LOVELESS, JOHN, COFFMAN, HINDMAN. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Resolution
declared adopted, reading as follows:

R225-01Approving financial relief
for Trans States Airlines, Inc.
The resolution was read by the Clerk.
Mr. Patterson explained that a request had been received from
Trans States Airlines (TWE) for a waiver of fees as a result of lost business
after the events of September 11th. The Airport Advisory Board recommended that
the fees be waived. He felt that was a reaction everyone had because of the circumstances
at the time. Mr. Patterson reported that the staff's concern is that a complete
waiver of the fees might be setting a precedent that should be considered very
carefully. He noted that it is still unclear how much relief the airline services
will receive from the federal government. Staff recommendation was for deferral
of the fees for a period of time to allow some relief from cash flow problems
that might have occurred, and then establish a repayment plan over a six month
period.
Mayor Hindman asked if any figures were available in regards
to how much money TWE might have lost, or what the passenger decrease has been.
Mr. Patterson responded that TWE anticipated what the revenues would be to us.
He pointed out that this happened at the time when TWE had already cut some service
at the airport anyway. Mr. Patterson indicated it would be very difficult to
say, with certainty, what the actual impact was. That was another reason staff
believed that sort of thing would come out during the review by the federal government
of all airlines. He remarked that it is already known that TWE has received some
relief from the government, but it is uncertain what the total will end up being.
That is why staff recommends a deferral rather than a waiver.
Mr. Janku asked what the deferred fees are for. Mr. Patterson
replied the deferral would be for landing fees and terminal space rental, and
fees for the common area where passengers load and unload.
Mr. Coffman asked about the congressional airline bail out.
At the time this request was made, Mr. Patterson said the first round of support
had not been provided by the government. Mayor Hindman suggested that staff should
find out more about the amount received. Mr. Coffman was concerned about even
a temporary waiver setting a bad precedent. He noted many businesses have suffered
recently, and he did not know why this particular industry needed to be singled
out for special treatment. Mr. Coffman wondered how much of their loss is related
to recent events.
Mr. John said he could not support the request. He preferred
supporting a marketing plan to improve the number of enplanements.
Mr. Janku suggested staff review the fee structure to see
if it should be modified in order to provide more incentive for other carriers
to come in.
It was decided the bill would not be amended to defer the
payments.
The vote on R225-01 was recorded as follows: VOTING YES: NO
ONE. VOTING NO: CRAYTON, JANKU, HUTTON, LOVELESS, JOHN, COFFMAN, HINDMAN. Resolution
defeated.

The following bills were introduced by the Mayor unless
otherwise indicated, and all were given first reading:

B347-01Accepting easements for utility
purposes.B348-01Authorizing acquisition of easements
necessary to relocate a power line along the south side of BigBear
Boulevard; appropriating funds.B349-01Amending Chapter 14 of the Code
to change the speed limit on portions of State Route B.B350-01Confirming the contract of Aplex,
Inc. for the construction of the Park Hill Addition DrainageImprovement
Project.B351-01Establishing Sanitary Sewer
District No. 144 along Mexico Gravel Road, adjacent to the intersectionof
Mexico Gravel Road and State Route PP.B352-01Authorizing Change Order No.
2 to the agreement with C.L. Richardson Construction Co., Inc.;approving
the engineer's final report for the Bear Creek Trail Phase III Project.B353-01Confirming the contract of Emery
Sapp & Sons, Inc. for construction of improvements at ColumbiaRegional
Airport.B354-01Authorizing acquisition of easements
necessary for the construction of the Heather Lane ImprovementProject.B355-01Appropriating funds for telephone
bills.B356-01Authorizing an agreement with
the Missouri Department of Health for the WIC Program; appropriatingfunds.B357-01Authorizing a grant agreement
with the Missouri Department of Public Safety; authorizing anagreement
with Advent Enterprises; appropriating funds.B358-01Vacating a portion of a utility
easement located south of East Broadway and west of South ProvidenceRoad.B359-01Approving the replat of Lot
11 Sedona Villas, Plat 1.B360-01Authorizing public sale of special
obligation bonds for solid waste and sanitary sewer capital projects.B361-01Amending Chapter 20 of the Code
to add a provision relating to processing fees and advertising costsfor
zoning at time of annexation.

(B)Board of Adjustment's determination
of zoning classification of tree service.
Mr. Janku made the motion that the issue be referred to the
Planning and Zoning Commission. The motion was seconded by Mr. John and approved
unanimously by voice vote.

(C)R-3 zoned properties along the
east side of Rock Quarry Road, north of the new State Route AC extension.
Mr. Beck explained that a property owner requested downzoning
of a 22-acre tract. He said the question had come up as to whether or not it
would be handled like a neighborhood association request wherein the City pays
the cost of advertising.
Mr. Dudark reminded the Council that Victoria Wilson (Riback
Holding) had testified earlier this evening that she would appreciate the Council's
support in downzoning this property. He spoke about the policy resolution that
was established primarily for the inner city neighborhoods where there is essentially
no charge to the property owner for a downzoning request. Mr. Dudark noted the
Riback property is not located in the inner city area -- it is to the south.
He indicated the Council would need to decide on whether to use the legislation
as a framework for moving ahead with the request. Staff believed because the
report identified a considerable amount of R-3 property in the Rock Quarry area,
the Council should have that option to consider as well.
Mr. John said if the Riback family is willing to downzone
their property, the Council should support them in that endeavor. He noted the
property is actually very close to downtown. Mr. John did not suggest that the
Council should try to downzone the tracts owned by unwilling participants.
Mr. Coffman noted the option allowing the Council to initiate
the downzoning of the Riback property.
Mr. Janku asked if this request could be included with the
other neighborhood groups that will be submitting applications in the near future.
Mr. Coffman made the motion that necessary action be taken
to permit the downzoning under the policy guidelines of PR195-92. The motion
was seconded by Mr. John and approved unanimously by voice vote.

(D)Environmental Assessment - Flat
Branch Park Phase II.
Mr. Beck commented that the Council spoke about beginning
work on converting the Flat Branch area to a park, and the first step involves
an environmental assessment of the property. He noted some clean-up work might
be necessary. He needed Council to formalize direction to staff so the process
could be initiated.
Mr. Janku asked if state funds were still available for the
clean-up. Mr. Beck indicated those funds are very questionable. Mr. Patterson
had heard that the insurance funding was almost gone, but he did not know that
for a fact. Mayor Hindman suggested that staff find out what funds might be available.
Whether the funds are available or not, Mr. Loveless thought
the City should proceed with the studies and find out what is needed.
Mr. Loveless made the motion that staff be directed to proceed
with the studies. The motion was seconded by Mayor Hindman and approved unanimously
by voice vote.

(E)Vandiver Transportation Development
District.
Mr. Beck indicated the Council discussed this issue at a work
session. He explained that TDD's would consist of specific geographical designs
and would not affect property other than that within the district. Mr. Beck did
not anticipate that there would be a lot of these districts if guidelines are
established. He reported that TDD's would be used solely for transportation purposes,
either in or around the geographic area, and could be for a street or thoroughfare
serving this area. Typically, these districts are set-up before development actually
occurs, but in this case a big part of the development is under contract. Mr.
Beck noted, however, that there are more transportation development needs in
the area.
Should the Council be open to the formation of such a district,
Mr. John believed the Council was amenable to start work on a policy resolution.
In addition, he thought staff should come back with a more thorough plan. He
spoke of the need for a policy to be enacted not just for CenterState, but for
other future developments as well. Before going much further on CenterState,
Mr. John thought they needed more information in regards to the finance agreements.
Mr. John made the motion that staff be directed to develop
a policy resolution with criteria for when and where TDD's could be allowed.
The motion was seconded by Mayor Hindman and approved unanimously by voice vote.
Mr. Janku asked if the Council wanted staff to continue discussions
with CenterState. Mr. Loveless thought it had been indicated that staff should
convey that the Council is leaning favorably toward a district, but would like
to see some numbers on various scenarios as far as what income generation there
would be. Mayor Hindman said the Council would like to see what they are going
to build with it...what the improvements are actually going to be. Mr. John noted
there are some staging issues as well -- what CenterState is asking for and what
they plan to pay for each part of it. When that comes back, he said the Council
can review the financial side of it and then see how many more amendments they
can add to it and send it back to them.
Mr. Loveless made the motion to proceed per Mr. John's suggestion.
The motion was seconded by Mr. John and approved unanimously by voice vote.
Mr. Hutton asked about the issue relating to the City paying
for legal counsel so the agreement could be prepared.
Mr. Boeckmann thought their attorney's preference is to be
hired by the City of Columbia rather than by CenterState, although staff has
indicated this person would be representing the district, which is a separate
entity from the City.
The Council decided not to worry about legal counsel at this
time.

(F)102 Anderson Avenue.
Mr. Coffman asked if anyone was currently complaining about
the rock structure. Mr. Patterson replied that the City received a written complaint
from a property owner in the area.
Mr. Janku inquired as to how the City should deal with this
issue. Mr. Patterson indicated staff needed direction from the Council as to
whether an ordinance should be prepared for a right of use permit. If the Council
chooses to deny the request, a motion would need to be made to that effect as
well. Mr. Patterson explained under that scenario, the case would be referred
to the court system for enforcement of City ordinances.
Mr. Janku agreed with the staff recommendation. He thought
if the applicant moved the wall off the right-of-way, that would be acceptable.
He pointed out that construction has not stopped while this issue has been under
consideration.
Ms. Crayton indicated she did not receive any complaints from
the neighbors. However, the applicant should understand that the City may need
that right-of-way at a later date.
Mr. Loveless remarked that this individual should also understand
that if utility work has to be done, the project will be torn up and not put
back. He noted that if a car is parked in front of the home, passengers are not
able to exit from the vehicle. Although, Mr. Loveless did not think that the
wall was hurting anything.
Mr. Coffman felt the man deserved a hearing.
Mr. Hutton suggested it be brought up as an ordinance so the
Council could debate the issue. Nevertheless, he was not in favor of allowing
the wall to remain. Mr. John concurred.
Mr. Patterson explained that a deadline had been given for
the wall to be removed, but staff had held off from having the violation prosecuted
because the applicant made the request to keep it. The applicant was told the
Council would have to approve the request. Mr. Patterson indicated that if the
Council wants to consider an ordinance, staff can have the legislation prepared,
but if not, the City has no reason to delay enforcement of the ordinance any
further.
Mr. Janku commented that he did not want the wall expanded
any further until the Council makes a decision.
Mr. Beck thought if a right of use permit is issued, it should
have conditions.
Mr. Coffman made the motion that legislation be prepared for
a conditional right of use permit in order for Mr. Launhardt to have a hearing.
Mr. Hutton asked Mr. Coffman if he would accept a friendly
amendment to his motion directing Mr. Launhardt to do no more work on the wall
until the bill is considered by the Council. Mr. Coffman said he would accept
that.
Mr. Loveless asked if the motion implies that staff should
not proceed with prosecution during that same period. Mr. Coffman said it did.
Mayor Hindman thought the City should find a way to make him
stop working on the wall and begin moving it off the right-of-way.
Mr. Coffman's motion died for the lack of a second.
Mr. John made the motion that staff be directed to give Mr.
Launhardt until the end of the year to move the wall off the right-of-way otherwise
he would be prosecuted. The motion was seconded by Mr. Janku and approved by
voice vote.

(G)Potential purchase of Cedar Oaks
Mobile Home Park.
Mr. Beck explained that the property includes two buildings
and the area the mobile home park was on. Mr. Patterson remarked that there is
some question as to what property should be considered. He thought any interest
the City might have would be in the mobile home park area. Mr. Patterson explained
the significant points in the letter specified the property would be constricted
to a park use rather than commercial development. From that standpoint, Mr. Patterson
said the City's process would be simply to indicate a willingness to enter into
negotiations. He noted an appraisal would have to be conducted to determine the
market value of the property.
Mayor Hindman pointed out that a lot of clean-up work would
be needed. Mr. Coffman asked if there was any idea about those costs. Mr. Patterson
said part of the assessment would include those costs.
Mr. Coffman commented that the rationale for the evictions
of the previous mobile home tenants was so that the owner could clean-up the
property. He asked if the City would hold him to that requirement. Mr. Patterson
responded the property will have to meet City code requirements. Mr. Coffman
asked about the timetable of that requirement. Mr. Patterson said he did not
know if that had been specified in any order. Mr. Boeckmann concurred with that
assessment. Mr. Loveless asked what development option the property owner would
have in the creek bottom. Mr. Patterson said he could rebuild the mobile home
park, but that was about all. He indicated this had been the owner's stated intent,
all along, to replace the mobile home park.
Mayor Hindman suggested authorizing the staff to talk to the
property owner about just the portion of the tract that the mobile home park
was on and find out what it is worth. He was not interested in the apartment
and store.
Mr. Janku made the motion that staff be authorized to convey
the City's limited interest in the property to see if the applicant is interested
in working with the City on a limited basis, and if so, move toward getting an
appraisal. The motion was seconded by Mr. Loveless and approved unanimously by
voice vote.

BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
Upon receiving the majority vote of the Council the following
individuals were appointed to the following Boards and Commissions:

COMMENTS OF COUNCIL, STAFF, AND PUBLIC
Mr. Janku asked that next year's sidewalk projects include
the common areas of a subdivision generally located north and west of Oakland
and Smiley Lane.
Mr. Janku asked if discussions are still being held with the
University regarding a shuttle service. He requested an update.
Mr. Janku mentioned a newspaper article in a St. Louis paper
about a ballfield for the disabled. He indicated they have organized wheelchair
leagues. He wondered, as the City moves forward with the Park Master Plan, if
that would be a possibility for Columbia.
Ms. Crayton asked that the staff find out about a project
in Kansas City related to neighborhood assistance funds. She reported that Councilperson
Nash is spearheading the effort.
Mr. Hutton stated that he would like the City to proceed with
the chronic nuisance property abatement ordinance. He inquired as to whether
the issue needed to be debated by another body before asking for an ordinance
to be prepared. Mayor Hindman suggested asking staff to evaluate the draft that
was presented this evening, making any changes they feel necessary, and bring
it back in ordinance form.
Mr. Hutton made the motion that staff review the suggested
procedure, make any changes they feel necessary, and report back with legislation
in report form or as a pre-Council dinner topic. The motion was seconded by Mayor
Hindman and approved unanimously by voice vote.
Mr. Loveless commented that he was still interested in traffic
calming and bike lane options for Chapel Hill Road, particularly the stretch
from Fairview to Scott Boulevard. Mr. Patterson responded staff is in the process
of obtaining counts and other information in order to report back.
In reference to an earlier topic this evening, Mr. John noted
that conditional uses are not allowed in planned districts. The way the ordinances
are written, there is no mechanism for allowing a conditional use in a planned
district unless it is specifically enumerated as such. He wanted staff to review
this issue.
Mr. John made the motion that the issue be referred to the
Planning and Zoning Commission for their review and recommendation. The motion
was seconded by Mr. Janku and approved unanimously by voice vote.
Mr. Coffman advocated that the Council revisit the concept
of creating a mandatory park dedication ordinance. He suggested that a model
ordinance be drafted for discussion..
Mr. John pointed out that not more than a year ago, a sales
tax was passed that will raise approximately $1.5 million per year for the acquisition
and development of parks. He was not supportive of one more layer of legislation
for the purpose of acquiring more parkland. Mr. John thought that the Parks and
Recreation Department indicated that not every development should have a park
in it, nor is every piece of ground donated worth developing. He stated there
are tracts currently not developed because there is no need for a park in that
particular area.
Mr. Janku suggested putting this issue on the work session
list where they might get some input on different ordinances and different approaches
that might be used to enhance park acquisition or park development. He wanted
to get some information beyond the general concept on how it works in other communities.
Mayor Hindman proposed that the Council be sent a copy of
the report again to refresh their memories. Mr. Loveless thought Mr. Hood could
submit parkland dedication ordinances that have been enacted in other cities
for Council review. Mr. Coffman agreed to a report that listed a variety of options.
Mr. Beck suggested looking at how a park system can be supported
in a community. Specifically, do other communities having mandatory ordinances
use ballot issues to fund ongoing maintenance of the parks.
Mr. Coffman reported that he has been contacted by a couple
of groups in regards to instant run-off voting. The question is whether it is
something that would require a change to the Charter. He asked if a report was
still in the works. Mr. Boeckmann replied that it was on his list. He explained
the facts to consider relate to whether or not the City could do anything in
view of existing state statutes as opposed to a Charter amendment. Mr. Coffman
pointed out that interest is growing on the issue.
Mr. Coffman believed the Council should consider the primary
recommendation of the Ward Reapportionment Committee pertaining to an increase
in the number of City wards. He thought the number could be increased by two,
but perhaps this issue should be deferred until some point before the next reapportionment
is necessary. He thought it was an idea worth exploring.
Keith Brackus, a resident of the 6th Ward, affirmed his support
for instant run-off voting. He asked that the City move forward to check the
legality of such in Columbia.
Jamie Logan, spoke on behalf of her mother who owns property
at 400 Oak Street. She indicated the house has been owned by her family since
1961. Ms. Logan stated that in 1981, the family qualified for a CDBG loan to
rehabilitate the home as part of a community revitalization effort. The family
has tried to rent the property, but due to environmental concerns (asbestos and
fumes) the house has been inhabitable. Ms. Logan explained that her mother received
a letter from the Public Works Department requesting that either the property
be demolished or that she move back into it. She reported that as her mother
is retired and disabled, it is not a feasible alternative for her to move back
into the house. Ms. Logan spoke about the family's desire to preserve the functionality
of the home for other low-income families.
After doing some research, Ms. Logan learned that certain
areas within the city are eligible for what is called a "brown field" (EPA) designation.
She commented that under this program, tax incentives are made available for
people who want to remedy problems or redevelop property in central city neighborhoods.
Ms. Logan inquired as to why this information is not made available to Columbia
property owners within the brown field area. She learned that not only is there
a brown field tax incentive program, but also technical assistance and outreach
programs funded by the federal government to provide information and assistance
to people who want to redevelop property in these areas. Ms. Logan pointed out
that there are showcase communities in Kansas City and St. Louis that have been
in operation for a number of years. Applications are being accepted with a deadline
of Friday, October 19, 2001, for new brown field pilot programs. She reported
that 47.2% of the people living in the First Ward are at or below the poverty
level. She said the brown field reinvestment initiative provides for job training
and job development to help people learn how to deal with environmental hazards.
Ms. Logan wondered if it would be possible for property owners to work together
with the Public Works Department and the City Council to form a collaborative
effort to address not only the problem homes in the First Ward, but also to develop
alternatives to address the multi-faceted challenges that face this ward.
Ms. Crayton thanked Ms. Logan for sharing information that
could be very helpful. She said the Council is always receptive to new ideas.
Mr. Janku suggested that Ms. Logan also share her information
with Mr. Dudark. He added there may be other programs already in place that may
be of assistance.
Chip Cooper, 500 Longfellow, spoke on behalf of the PedNet
Coalition. He said the PedNet Master Plan advocates that the City ought to take
advantage of major construction projects, i.e., roads or sewers, as an opportunity
to include quality bicycle/pedestrian/wheelchair facilities as part of the design
standard. He noted that under this plan, such a network could be built at the
cheapest possible price. Mr. Cooper reiterated PedNet's concern about the lack
of action to include the construction of a trail when the Grindstone Creek Sewer
Project was approved. He expressed similar disappointment at the Council's decision
regarding the extension of Vandiver. Once again, public funds will be spent to
stimulate and facilitate an old style automobile-oriented development. Mr. Cooper
understood there would be no bike lanes, no sidewalks, no pedestrian bridges
as part of this project. He went on to say that he has no confidence that there
will be bicycle/pedestrian facilities planned within the CenterState and Lake
of the Woods projects. Mr. Cooper assured the Council that if the transportation
network is not balanced, Columbia will no longer be considered one of the most
livable communities. He stated until the City hires a Bicycle/Pedestrian Coordinator,
a person who will be in a position to ensure that network planning is carried
out with each and every development, park and sewer project, no significant progress
will be made toward the advancement of this network.
Mark Crawford, 4551 Ravens Ridge, reported that he owns 36
acres on the corner of Rock Quarry and the new Route AC that he does not want
to be downzoned.
Mark Stephenson, 1122 Old Highway 63 South, commented that
he also is not interested in downzoning property he owns on Rock Quarry Road.
The meeting adjourned at 12:20 p.m.